Raj

Raj has rated 16 movies, and has posted 43 comments.

Also check out the list of wogma's top readers.

Ratings

  • Kesari: Nay! Thumbs Down:
  • The Accidental Prime Minister: Nay! Thumbs Down: Avoid
  • Dangal: So-So: Sugar coated Regressive portrayal of feminine gender
  • Talvar: Nay! Thumbs Down: Disappointing, Debauched, Manipulative, Subtly by crafty persuading audiences…
  • Katti Batti: Nay! Thumbs Down: Why not Switch Channel?
  • Manjhi The Mountain Man: Nay! Thumbs Down: Very poor writing, and theatrical narrative
  • Siddharth The Prisoner: Yay! Thumbs Up: Good
  • Tanu Weds Manu Returns: Yay! Thumbs Up: Kangana as Kusum steals the show - An ACE
  • Bombay Velvet: Nay! Thumbs Down: Be a Critic who is like an audience
  • Mardaani: So-So: View Tamil movie "Vidyum Munn" also...
  • Humshakals: Nay! Thumbs Down: Save us and Save Indian cinema.
  • The Lunchbox: Yay! Thumbs Up: Media over-rated a good movie; surely not for Oscars!
  • Chennai Express: Yay! Thumbs Up: Sad that movie was a hit, happy because it is a good movie.
  • Raanjhanaa: Yay! Thumbs Up: Excellent first half! Outstanding Dhanush. Brilliant Rahman.
  • Joker: Yay! Thumbs Up: Dear Shirish I want a few more from you. Worst than Clerk and worster than Joker. Please..!
  • Gangs of Wasseypur 2: So-So: Opportunity lost with enthusiasm and zeal - uncontrolled show of ugliness. Sorry!

Comments

  • Kesari:

    (smiles), times are not far when in name of patriotic religious fervor we will find women indulge in gory violence in name of "empowerment" and "equality".. Mercifully... spared..!

    posted 2 months ago
  • The Accidental Prime Minister:

    Very apt review Meetu, Not a beat missed by your watchful eye.

    posted 4 months, 1 week ago
  • 2.0:

    Good review Meetu.
    Though now a days I do not post my comments. Sorry for that.
    I always come here to read your reviews of all the movies you see.
    Thank YOU so much for keeping this WOGMA project going.

    Just for laughs:
    When I tried to click below
    Are you human?
    "I'm not a robot- "
    I was searching for the captcha code "2.0"

    posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago
  • Dangal:

    I normally do not state my views until I feel strongly, and I do not feel anything "cool" about my views. Though based and inspired on some facts, the movie was not a true story it was fictional.

    I understand the popularity of movie and that is what concerned me more - the repercussions of imitations and effect on children (not only girls) may not be good as they grow up.

    The power of cinema is undeniable. As the movie was fictional - (the coach was shown in bad light which was not the case in real life) - I would have liked if Amir Khan would have shown the ending where girls not winning any medals - and then also it was okay for the father to accept them as their daughters, a feminine character - who is not imitating men and doing all bad/ stupids things men do in name of BRAVADO.

    I agree the movie is very well made - A Sugar coated pill, and it is successful... People are enjoying it - but it leaves a psychological distortion of sorts on gender roles.

    I know I am in a minority of sorts to nitpicks on things I feel strong. Sorry for that...!

    posted 2 years, 4 months ago
  • Dangal:

    I am aware that many people would not like to read my review.

    I have no doubt that the movie viewing experience with its emotional pot-boiler roller coaster ride engages and is a good one, better than the Indian, regional and vernacular soap-opera dished out on Indian television. (That is why I am giving 7 out of 10 rating)

    But if a sensitive person looks beyond the cosmetics of movie dazzles – you will find someone is selling a regressive message through this film. Kodus to Dangal team for achieving such a feat. Here is my take..

    When the first poster of the movie was released I did not like it. Even though being a wrestler, why four girls should look like boys was the first question I raised.

    Now after reading so much appreciation and reviews of the movie I say this:

    • This is another patriarchal portrayal of regressive India • A father forces his dreams on children. One should never do • Children should be kept free to develop and grow as they want • This is again patriarchy dominance on the feminine gender and forcing it with the power of parenting to subjugate the flourishing of women's gender. • For sure the flourishing of women's gender is not in imitating men and/or boys and becoming fighters, wrestlers and looking masculine. This is degrading the pride, dignity and respect of being a woman • To use a true success story of a single case and successfully use it as propaganda for women's emancipation is sickening to say the least. The negative fallout of this movie could be: • Irrespective of boys or girls many parents will force their children (and more so to girls) to do what they failed to achieve in life. Make their children do things that they as parents have dreamed. Sick mentality! • Many girls may start behaving like boys - wearing boys dress, cutting hair like boys, fighting like boys etc. etc. not at all in the spirit of humanism • Father in the movie saying that "My girls are no less than boys". Such comparisons are not needed in today's evolved society. This is a phrase of sixties India. It is similar to always call a girl "Tom Boy" and demean and insult her sexuality. Such comparisons just distort the femininity of girls and women, who mis-understand such statements as being treated like boys rather than girls • Addressing girls as a male gender and treating one like that - the society like India - parents may do that to destroy the little bit of remaining self-esteem that girls and women - have on their given gender and sexuality • I also am bothered - as I always tell everyone about it is MAN - in capitals that drive the so called women's emancipation and empowerment agenda - It is so disturbing to see this. The four writers of the movie are men, the director of the movie is wearing men's glasses, the so called super-star gender sensitive actor Amir Khan is too wearing a man's hat. • In propaganda of spreading regressive message through this film the team too is of men - the director, writer, producer and lead actor - all men - who drive to influence the society in a way that may create a distorted image of what is meant by women empowerment. • In real life on which the movie is based the father of the wrestling girls drives their lives. Such case studies should have been presented more sensitively by showing – such things need not be done – even though in the end it brings laurels for the country.

    Though I agree the medium of cinema when used with shrewdness can garner enough emotions of within ignorant humans about nationhood to back the protagonist in whatever s/he is doing.

    That is what has happened in this movie - the art of good film-making - tends to overlook and ignore finer aspects of women empowerment and digs more deep into the patriarchal systems to further strengthen patriarchal roles to build the women's liberation and freedom movement

    I hope some readers who are sensitive human being will try to understand the point I am making and deplore such popular presentation of regressive concepts on feminism.

    Have a look at the film with those lenses.

    posted 2 years, 4 months ago
  • Talvar:

    Dear Meetu, I could not resist but write back again here. Ten days, 17 pages of paid-news coverage in Times of India supplements City Edition, plus on-going regular news-clips in the main paper. Yesterday, (11 Oct 10 pm) heard the paid-debate on Times Now too (Good Arnab was neutral) but unlike Meghna's earlier rant about she is neutral, she was vehemently fighting for Talwars. What a let down from the time she came to promote the movie with Vishal Bhardwaj on NDTV saying - She has just presented facts. As I had not followed the case at all, came to know that there are so many facts, the film has intentionally not presented to the audience.

    Just imagine, if the film is able to free Talwars, and prosecute the poor three friends of Hemraj, (yet according to the night security - no one came or went in the society or the house that night), Will Vishal Bhardwaj and Meghna Gulzar make a movie showing that they are innocent? NO, because they are poor.

    I reiterate how good it would be if they had made a real life movie on an innocent poor rural person who is wrongly prosecuted and is in jail from last 15-20 years. There are more than 10% of such cases from the total of 3 lakh under trails in Indian jail.

    I am no expert, but just using my common sense in an objective way to understand the case and the movie and its motive.

    I feel very very let down by Vishal Bhardwaj's script, screenplay and Meghna Gulzar.

    I won't be a surprise if Meghna Gulzar runs away with all critics awards - sadly this is the society we are living in today!

    Move on.... Move on...!

    posted 3 years, 7 months ago
  • Talvar:

    Meetu, Unlike my full IMDB review, I didn't put my comment on use of paid-media (electronic and print) that producers and production services are using especially of leading national daily and its state subsidiaries. I could not resist but raise my protest over here - it is 5 days and there is 12 pages of paid-news coverage in TOI on Talwars. I am appalled and disturbed by this corrupt mis-use. It strengthens my observation further on the pervert intentions of the film-makers backed by someone who wants Talwars to be proved innocent.

    I understand that there might not be a compelling case against the Talwars, but who is going to fight the case for the 3 friends of Hemraj - if they are innocent?

    How I wish - money and easy funding - doesn't drive police, judiciary and media. How I wish - if this film duo had taken a clear cut case of a poor victim who is wrongly prosecuted and there is no one to even hear what they have to say. Just because they are poor - they don't have voice. And there are more than 300 K under-trails in India - some dying in the jail and their cases pending since 15-20 years. Very very sad, that people are running behind Talwars to give them justice with such zeal.

    posted 3 years, 7 months ago
  • Talvar:

    Dear Meetu,

    The main purpose of the movie was clearly to show the parents were wrongly prosecuted due to blotched up police investigation (the movie shows that very effectively). The movie was not only manipulative but intrusively playing on the psychology of audiences by misusing the power of cinematic medium. I found the movie serving the same purpose as the frenzied media – the difference was timing and intent. Clearly the purpose of the movie was questionable.

    Casting was very important - what impact would it made if the role of Ashwini was played by an unknown actor – and Irfan was casted as head of second CBI team. The audience perception would have had swayed to what the second team would say. Additionally in the movie Tabu was paired with Irfan to build another by-plot of hero-heroine to lend authenticity to Irfan’s character as hero. Whatever hero says must be true- is the message audience takes back home. Very manipulative.

    Last 12 minutes the movie focuses two CBI teams facing and arguing each other in a room trying to convince each other about which investigation is true. Why the Director/ Writer duo should do such a thing and get away with additionally showing at least 5-7 minutes of actual court arguments that lead to parents prosecution? Very disturbing when the pseudo – intelligent critics and reviewers applaud such a crafty and bogus manipulation. Cinematic liberty!?

    There are rumors as claimed by a Director Manish Gupta who made another fictional movie ‘Rahasya’ inspired by Aarushi murder case, that the Talwars had approached him to make a movie showing them as innocent, and when the Director didn’t agree – they wanted to ban the release of the movie.

    The last scene where it is shown the parents entering the jail after being found guilty by the court and the manipulative sad back-ground score playing – stating parents are innocent and this is what should linger in the minds of audiences who walk out of the theatres. Debauching!

    I am disappointed and question the integrity of the duo – Director Meghna Gulzar and screenplay writer Vishal Bhardwaj. Apologies and sorry!

    If I had heard them saying in their TV interviews that the movie is trying to show in favor of Talwar parents, I would had certainly rated this movie 6.5, but now...
    (Rating 4.5 out of 10)

    posted 3 years, 7 months ago
  • Katti Batti:

    Dear Meetu, When has Nikhil Advani given a good movie? He has sophistication, connection, understands technique of movie making, can convince and talk to bollywood honchos confidently to put money behind him. But what he comes out with is... Uhh... I think, he hopes one day after 10 flops he will give a big hit. He may. But who is going to bear the torture of those 9 movies?

    posted 3 years, 8 months ago
  • Manjhi The Mountain Man:

    Dear Meetu, Hi, I saw this. Ketan Mehta has messed a beautiful tale of courage and LOVE. Very poor writing, and theatrical narrative. Looked to me like a Bhojpuri director is trying to make a commercial Satyajit Ray film. I recollect Ketan Mehta - Bhavni Bhavai, Mirch Masala and to some extend Maya Memsaab; but since then - he gets the story right, but execution is pathetic - including how Mangal Pandey was. Very stagy, artificial - Nawasuddin Siddique is the only saving grace. Not even Radhika Apte - who is little earnest, but that's it. I dread Ketan completing his trilogy on Jhansi Ki Rani and Bahadur Shah Jafar. Eeks...

    posted 3 years, 9 months ago
  • Siddharth The Prisoner:

    Dear Meetu, right! Thanks for being so understanding...

    posted 3 years, 11 months ago
  • Siddharth The Prisoner:

    Meetu, I am glad you replied. I thought you won't. I read wogma everyday since its inception, when it was just in a blog format (remember that?), and that time I used to stay in Amsterdam. Your blog was my source of good Indian movies review. In Amsterdam, I saw many international movies, and good ones too, and you are right - many a times, there is no audience. Except there, even if I am ALL ALONE in the theatre, they will run the show with one person. I think such thing is not possible in India. Looking forward to some good reviews of good movies by you.
    Also it is nice to see that your perception of our relationship which many a times has gone up and down (love and hate) - and I find solace that we seem to have hit a bit of balance and I have mellowed down and you've been more acceptable to my comments. Sincerely Thankful..

    posted 3 years, 11 months ago
  • Siddharth The Prisoner:

    Dear Meetu, Nice to see you write this review. I am extremely pleased. I think, this is one of the very few instance, that you have taken a movie that is not so popular and even though many well-known critics had given below-par ratings. Though there are obvious pot-holes in the script, the movie is well made, and you have done full justice of being independent objective critic. Cheers...

    posted 3 years, 11 months ago
  • Tanu Weds Manu Returns:

    Unlike Bombay Velvet which excelled in technical department and yet failed as a movie, TWMR though with countless technical flaws excels as a movie experience.

    posted 4 years ago
  • Bombay Velvet:

    Dear all,

    I am one of the earliest followers of WOGMA about 6-8 years back when it started and I like Meetu's review. I visit here because I value the critic's thoughts and reviews about movies. Just because I do not engage actively does not mean I don't read all your comments and debates.

    And if I have to share a point or two, I think everyone should allow that.

    Meetu provides that liberal platform for people to voice their opinion without curtailing their freedom of expression except in worst cases of using abuse.

    In case of Bombay Velvet, I think not a single person of the film industry criticized the movie, such hypocrites! And all reviewers who gave half hearted average or above average rating ranted about technicalities and acting, forgetting that technicalities of making movie occupies only 5% of audience mind except those like us who see other aspects also while watching movies. I understand no reviewer is perfect, and is /will always remain subjective. My point is: "Good reviewer should like a general feel good about the movie as an audience feels. Good movie should touch your heart. Not to say that 100 crore plus movies are always good. Most of them are terrible. But good movies are good and bad movies are bad. A good critic should be able to grow and evolve to understand and feel that part of movie watching experience.

    Though technically good, Bombay Velvet was a bad movie.

    posted 4 years ago
  • Bombay Velvet:

    Well said FAN!

    What would the critic / reviewer of that operation write about it?

    "Classic operation that family members didn't understand anything about!?"

    posted 4 years ago
  • Bombay Velvet:

    Before the interest and debate on Bombay Velvet dries out and everyone moves on,
    I would like to give my half a cent of thought:

    What movie critics - who gave average or above average ratings to Bombay Velvet - did was:

    It is like selecting someone as life-partner in today's times who is technically highly rated on this checklist:

    -Known, Wealthy, qualification, status, looks, family, cleanliness etc.

    But ONE who doesn't / can't give you LOVE & make you feel happy!

    Audience while watching a movie don't see other things, but just experience the feeling of being happy and satisfied, a feeling of joy hard to describe.

    Surely it is not all technicalities of movie making that critics laud. Technicalities only contribute to less than five percent in audience's mind.

    Critic need to be savvy like that audience, and not keen on shown how well they understand the technicality of movie making.
    In the end, who cares about technicalities if the movie is a crap - its like the "Oxford Comma' song.. snobbish, elitist, ondescending!

    posted 4 years ago
  • Bombay Velvet:

    'Bombay Velvet''s colossal disaster has one unintentional purpose:
    It'll differentiate an independent good film critic from a pseudo lousy back-scratching 'middle-of-the-road' critic!

    Next time if anyone wants to find the calibre of a critic, read that critic's review of Bombay Velvet.
    You'll know which Queen/King was/is walking without clothes around in the town till now!

    posted 4 years ago
  • Mardaani:

    Dear Meetu,
    As I have worked with child trafficking group I would like to say this:

    With Singham style commercial format and over-riding women empowerment jump-board, I would have liked Pradeep Sarkar to incorporate this aspect - 90% of first contact of child trafficking victim who initiate this trade is a women, and 99% of third contact is also a women. It would have given a balanced awareness!

    posted 4 years, 8 months ago
  • Humshakals:

    Farah ki MA apne ghar wale ko kaun si chakki ka atta khilati hain? Ek ke baad ke yeh parivaar joh 'pathetic' filme deeti hai - ab toh aur badtaar film banane ki bhi jagah nahi hai.

    Manoj Kumar's Clerk seems a masterpiece in front of this series - Tees Maar Khan, Joker, Housefull 2, Himmatwala and Humshakals.

    Hame is Pagal parivar se koi bachao. Producers - Please spend that money in re-habilitating the Farah-Sajid-Shirish family to an mental asylum!!!

    Has anyone said that Dada Kodke made better movies than this!?

    posted 4 years, 11 months ago
  • The Lunchbox:

    Everywhere the movie is lauded, and Meetu gives good review but under-rates. Meetu is wrong again, I think! I see the movie. Its good - but Meetu's rating is perfect.

    It looks to me - that those people who have loved this movie are without true LOVE or without good CINEMA, and when they see something little good - they jump on it with all praise! Added to that the Dharma (Karan Johar) and Anurag Kashyap, UTV - and many others' media contacts have given an over-rating to a good movie.

    Well done Meetu, at least I agree with you! Otherwise you might always think, Raj's comments means always finding some fault in my review. NO. You are SPOT ON!

    posted 5 years, 7 months ago
  • Chennai Express:

    Dear Meetu,

    "I want to see Chennai Express flop, because the type of movies Rohit Shetty makes, the type of atrocious sensibilities SRK & his clique has towards south Indians!"

    Oops! CE crossed 200 crores!? Let me go and see what is it about. I went to see Chennai Express. Barring not being too sensitive on serious flaws in South India typecasting - I liked it!

    I have also been a critic on imdb (>150 movies) and a quality of being good critic is to be an audience who likes good movies. I think many critics loose that innocence while analyzing, thinking and being prisoner to their own projections of earlier reviews.

    I think CE was a real fun movie! Didn't expect it that way. Pleasantly surprised!

    Old and haggard - SRK manages a BLOCKBUSTER HIT.

    posted 5 years, 8 months ago
  • Raanjhanaa:

    Dear Meetu,

    There is much to say, but I do not want to use this platform of wogma to share thoughts on issue/traits so personal.

    I think its inappropriate to do so beyond a point. I am sorry if I hurt you in anyway.
    If you feel like connecting - do email me.

    posted 5 years, 11 months ago
  • Raanjhanaa:

    Yes, I may agree that you might have prejudices against fair skin people too! I dont know you personal - whatever I have known about your thoughts is through your reviews and the way you write, and I have never noticed - you have never in your reviews picked up anyone with fair skin. But with regard to a couple of actors your prejudice and biases stand out as a sore thumb.

    I would surely say that - it is again WRONG to dislike a 'fair skin person' just because of gut feeling about the way they look..! I would have opposed you as strongly for that too!

    posted 5 years, 11 months ago
  • Raanjhanaa:

    Meetu, sorry I still cant understand how one can get an overall feel, a gut feeling of like or dislike - seeing a person - the way they look?! I understand once you interact with a person - and the person shows some traits and then you build your gut feeling of like / dislike. But just seeing a person - making a gut feeling is so premature. I think no one should do it because one can be so so very wrong - deceived by the looks.

    I just hope that the mothers teach their children NEVER to have a gut feeling seeing how a person looks. Every child/ person is beautiful however deformed or ugly anyone might see them. Ask a mother about a child who is considered ugly! Only if a person does something wrong in conduct - thought, speech and action, then its justified. But without that - there is something very very wrong dear!

    posted 5 years, 11 months ago
  • Raanjhanaa:

    I have seen a streak of your mind through various reviews, and it follows here too. Your comment about Dhanush: "...though you start out with a distinct dislike..." and "...he does 'look' pretty awful..."

    If I remember corretly, you had made such remards against ther south Indian dark skinned actor - Rajnikanth too!

    I have mentioned somewhere in my earlier comments about your non-refined prejudices for/against a particular looks/ race. Your frothiness is so superficial and skin deep.

    Dhanush is very good looking and refined. (Ask Aishwarya!) You might disagree with me completely. But that is because of your upbringing. (I had mentioned that earlier too! And you had LOL on it.) You can have LOL again, but you have to learn to see a person beyond skin - as beautiful!

    Sadly your outword prejudices puts you in the same league as the unbearable Kamal R Khan who thinks Dhanush looks untouchable - like a Bhanghi (one who lift human latrine on head) and Chamar (who processes skin of dead cow or makes footwears). That's what your upbringing made you keenly aware of.

    I didnt' wanted to write this; I have not written to Kamal Khan. There, there is no chance or scope of refinement - in your case I think there perhaps is some possiblity you might see the light before you close your eyes!

    Sorry if my comments hurts you - but I hope it makes you thoughtful.

    My comments may be biased, because I love Dhanush too much..!

    posted 5 years, 11 months ago
  • Joker:

    Hmm... this much influence of the hangover of Manoj Kumar's "Clerk" on the psyche of Farah and Sajid Khan - that it took 8 years to transpose the putrescible of "Clerk" to "Joker" through Shirish Kunder. A benchmark tribute of Bollywood's worst in stretching limits to make us yawn and feel sick. Clerk "best of the worst" for 20th Century and Joker - of 21st century. Compare both, and you will surely say Clerk was better...! A new Landmark tribute left for Indian cinema!

    posted 6 years, 8 months ago
  • Gangs of Wasseypur 2:

    I understand Meetu, it is like a student score 80-95 marks in all individual subjects (English, Maths, Chemistry, History etc.) - but still we dont like the student - individual scores dont add to build a likablility.

    'Cult' is a movie that is normally a low budget movie mostly showing never seen before on screen - horrow, violence, blood, drugs, violence, torture, sex, gore or nauseating toilet humor - and develops a devoted small group of fan base, who are obliged to praise that B-C grade movie. This small base following extends to several generations (each generations has got those frenzy loopy characters), affecting psychological deviants in the society who feel so imbibed in the cult of what is shown on screen - that they start practicing such things in real life.

    It makes me smile when someone attempts to make a 'cult' base. I think its a de-generated human outlook. I think AK is trying to follow that path with psuedo-intellectuality.

    posted 6 years, 9 months ago
  • Gangs of Wasseypur 2:

    How come such excellent ratings in all departments leaves it for - "The keen must watch it on screen - else DVD"?

    It is easy to criticize - but even though let me indulge - it seems no critic/ reviewer has guts to say that an immature child has learnt a tool call 'direction', and is playing with it by imagining himself to be intellectual and presenting the world with a crass, obtuse & gross cinema - imagining it that people will call it a cult - because things shown are never shown before on screen.

    Sad!

    18 crores in making a film, 18 crores in marketing it! Did not everyone review it GREAT CINEMA with their media channels time booked, screened, paid for a good review?

    Cult! I believe the stupid process.

    posted 6 years, 9 months ago